Of course, it could just be that the organization is so desperate for volunteer help that they’ll take the dregs. That’s not a confidence builder, either.

There’s a petition. Unfortunately, it’s already full of trolls using fake names — change.org really needs to tighten up their procedures. These petitions already reek of uselessness, and the fact that they’re so easily gamed makes them totally pointless.

Also since there have been posts on FtBs about Edwina Rogers appointment not being a good idea I cannot see them reversing this decision. It will be those bullies from FtBs trying to harm a pure innocent sceptic again!

JT rather publicly posted he moved to Patheos for better money since he’s no longer working for the SSA.
I’ve seen him make various supportive comments about FTB even after the move. As Joe said, there’s no apparent rift.
(Granted, I’m a bit miffed at JT since it makes it a tad harder for me to keep up with blogs I like. :)

We learned how “useful” those online polls are with those 2 recent petitions asking for Rebecca Watson to be removed and not removed from the SGU podcast.

Apparently this Vacula guy has done activism for separation of church and state. As long as he doesn’t do anything related specifically to women I don’t really see the problem. I mean there are religious people working in the public sector in America despite the 1st amendment because they mostly keep their religion to themselves. At the weekend, when they’re not working, they can camp at an abortion clinic’s door and be odious for a while.

Analogously, he could help the SCA doing the separation of church and state thing and only publish personal information of people he doesn’t like on hate sites only during his private time.

It bothers me that the blog owner has not yet reconciled himself with the fact that 50% of the human race is of below average intelligence but still has IP addresses and can type. It is not really worth remarking on more than occasionally, or even once, as far as I can see.

The only solution, besides ending commenting altogether, that I can think of is a white-list, with its attendant maintenance hassles. Then of course it’s no longer a public forum. But we wouldn’t have to read PZ complaining any more.

Paul Elam showed up to the post in question to try and say that AVFM is not a hate site, despite being named specifically on the post at southern poverty law center regarding MRA hate websites. Other various MRA scum is going to flood in soon after, I am sure.

The petition isn’t useless. Every person who signs sends an email to the SCA telling them they want change and why. That I get more harassment in the meantime (which is a very small fraction of the signatures at this point) is simply to be expected. change.org has been cleaning it up, though, interestingly.

Odd, because I am finding that a lot of religious people in government seem to be wanting government to enforce their religion. While people have been able to separate their professional from their delusional lives before, we are seeing less and less of it.

Meanwhile, it is my opinion that a man with those attitudes towards women will exude it all the time. He will have to deal with women in this position even if he is not working the MRA angle. And those women will feel his venom towards their gender even though he is discussing something else.

Religious people in government also know there are other religious people in government. They know there are religious people in society. And they can’t tell, in a work context, whether someone is religious or not.

This guy most definitely will be aware of when he is dealing with a woman and his contempt for women will be utterly apparent whenever he does so.

Right, because Pharyngula has suggested creating a registry of people who disagree with with as many personal details as possible. And we’ve suggested that violence against the people we disagree with is a good way to make them learn a lesson. And we always victim blame when the subject of religious persecution comes up.

As long as he doesn’t do anything related specifically to women I don’t really see the problem.

Well, either you think women don’t exist outside of areas specifically related to women or you don’t see how women who would be working with Vacula might have a problem interacting with someone who’s an obvious misogynist, even if he doesn’t do anything overtly misogynist on the job. “Oh, he only writes for hate sites on weekends? He only encourages and enables the harassment of women in his free time? I guess I shouldn’t mind, then. There’s no way that level of misogyny will leak over into our professional interactions.” No. Fuck that. Anyone who thinks that’s how it would go is a complete and total fucking idiot.

I mean there are religious people working in the public sector in America despite the 1st amendment because they mostly keep their religion to themselves. At the weekend, when they’re not working, they can camp at an abortion clinic’s door and be odious for a while.

The government has an obligation to stay out of its employees’ off-hours religious affairs because it’s the government. But the SCA isn’t the government and misogyny isn’t a religion, so the First Amendment doesn’t apply. The SCA is a group representing non-theists; to effectively fulfill its mission, it must avoid hiring odious people who make non-theist look bad or who make it harder for certain allies to interact comfortably with the coalition.

@ckitching! But YOU need to read them if you’re then going to criticize them! You misunderstand…

PZ VERY frequently complains about things that are just part of life, like unintelligent people saying things that smart people think are… unintelligent. It gets to a point of me wondering if PZ might be a tad, oh I don’t know, INTOLERANT? He’s university professor, why shouldn’t some people be less intelligent than he is? And why should he complain about it, if to begin with he is willing to post his (intelligent) writings in a public place that has a commenting feature?

And I don’t have to read them? The only way to find out if they’re not worth reading is to read them. Think it through, ckitching! I think it would be a much better use of everyone’s time if PZ held back on complaining about the mundane.

Compare and contrast with A Voice for Men’s stated mission and values:

After considerable review, and given that AVfM does not speak for the entirety of the men’s movement, I have decided to overhaul the content of the “Mission and Values” page to reflect the policies of avoiceformen.com and A Voice for Men Radio, forthwith. This new mission and values statement has just replaced the last one.
It is AVfM’s mission to facilitate the following:

The dissemination of information that will expose misandry on all levels in our culture.

You hear that? ALL levels in our culture! Especially the ones that are dominated by, um, men, which is, um, a lot of them.

To denounce the institution of marriage as unsafe and unsuitable for modern men, and to promote awareness of information designed to protect men who are already married.

Because you know that no woman is worth spending the rest of your life with, and therefore you will be screwed when you eventually divorce.

Why a marriage of a man to a man is not mentioned at all, let alone evaluated in the potential harm it would do to the men in question, is kind of a head-scratcher.

To promote an end to chivalry in any form or fashion.

This one I’m actually in full agreement with. But probably not for the same reasons.

To promote the legal and nonviolent antagonism of all agents of misandry, from members of academe, to holders of public office, to law enforcement and other state functionaries, to popular bloggers and to corporate agents who promote misandry for profit.

One man’s “antagonism” is another woman’s harassment.

To support peaceful acts of civil disobedience when necessary

To educate men and boys about the threats they face in feminist governance and to promote an end to that governance.

To debunk the lies and distortions of misandry and feminist governance wherever they occur.

To offer a more reasoned, cogent and intellectually honest view of sexual politics.

To address the variety of problems faced by men and boys under feminist governance and attempt to ameliorate those problems.

You know, feminist governance. Like the U.S. House of Representatives (76 women, 359 men), the U.S. Senate (17 women, 83 men), the U.S. Supreme Court (3 women, 6 men) and the U.S. President (1 man).

To push for an end to rape hysteria, DV hysteria and false allegations.

1 out of 6 American women has been the victim of an attempted or completed rape within her lifetime. 1 in 33 men has been the victim of an attempted or completed rape within his lifetime. The perpetrators of these crimes are overwhelmingly men, in both cases.

Regarding domestic violence “hysteria”, here are the numbers: Around the world, at least one in every three women has been beaten, coerced into sex or otherwise abused during her lifetime. Most often, the abuser is a member of her own family.

To promote a culture that values equal treatment under the law for all human beings.

As long as they get to decide what’s equal.

The Values

AVfM regards gender ideologues and all other agents of misandry as a social malignancy. We do not consider them well intentioned or honest agents for their purported goals and extend to them no more courtesy or consideration than we would klansmen, skinheads, neo Nazi’s or other purveyors of hate. We will educate them where they are willing to learn, but hold them accountable for their ignorance as much as their actions.

Oh, the irony.

We take no side at all in partisan political struggles and, after weighing the evidence at hand, generally tend to view all organized mainstream political options as misandric.

Do I need to copy and paste my numbers for U.S. governing bodies?

We support and endorse only non-violent reactions to feminist governance and in fact are trying to head off future acts of violence that feminist governance is sure to foment.

We oppose all state authority over or interference in the private lives of consenting adults engaged in any form of sexual or romantic relationship.

We oppose any state authority over or interference in the commercialization of sexual relations between consenting adults.

One man’s “interference” is another woman’s “legal recourse”.

Yeah, I can see how Pharyngula and A Voice for Men is exactly the same.

To denounce the institution of marriage as unsafe and unsuitable for modern men

Why a marriage of a man to a man is not mentioned at all, let alone evaluated in the potential harm it would do to the men in question, is kind of a head-scratcher. –mythbri

Yeah, that doesn’t make any sense unless the gay men that are part of AVFM are GOProud gay men; you know, the ones who want to put a Republican in the White House and shift the already extreme-right SCOTUS even further to the right?

It seems the men’s rights people think the woman’s rights people are about hating men, and the woman’s rights people think the men’s rights people are about hating woman.

Well, if you don’t treat people with ladybits as equals as the MRA’s espouse, you do hate women at the end of the day. Feminists don’t hate men per se, but rather the social constructs of patriarchy/male privilege that keep the feminists from being fully equal. But the MRA’s view any challenge to patriarchy/male privilege to be a personal attack on them. A bit paranoid be they.

It seems the men’s rights people think the woman’s rights people are about hating men, and the woman’s rights people think the men’s rights people are about hating woman.

Is anyone in the right here?

It seems like the antivaccinationsts think doctors and scientists are trying to poison children for profit, and the doctors and scientists think antivaccinationists are so dangerously ill-informed that they’re destroying herd immunity and putting people at risk of dying from vaccine-preventable diseases.

Good points. I know nothing about these “mens rights” organisations, they could easily be a bunch of misogynistic assholes.

In principal though, surely if it’s ok to have people who campaign for the rights of woman, its ok for people to campaign for the rights of men as well? I understand that men have had a privileged position in society and have historically had little to campaign about. But surely in an ideal modern society where men and woman are truly equal, don’t both genders need their advocates?

I know nothing about these “mens rights” organisations, they could easily be a bunch of misogynistic assholes. […] But surely in an ideal modern society where men and woman are truly equal, don’t both genders need their advocates?

In principal though, surely if it’s ok to have people who campaign for the rights of woman, its ok for people to campaign for the rights of men as well?

In principal, if everything was kept on an intellectual and factual level. But the MRA folks don’t do that. They lie about facts, they ignore and ridicule what feminists and their supporters say, they engage in smear campaigns include rape and death threats against vocal feminists of both sexes. Read up on what Rebecca Watson has had to endure for simply saying “Guys, don’t do that”. They essentially throw toddler temper tantrums at the prospect of not getting their way. Compare this to how the other side operates. Lack of threats, etc.

Thanks so much, that’s exactly the explanation I needed. I withdraw my previous equivocation, the MRA people sound awful. I just read the A Voice for Men mission and values, what a pile of disgusting nonsense.

I understand that ideal society I postulated doesn’t exist, if it did we wouldn’t need any of this discussion.

And those who are, for real, campaigning for men’s rights, for human rights, realize that eliminating our current Abrahamic patriarchal paradigm is the only way to do that.

I agree.

You don’t think the “techonz thinks women are less than human” thing was a little hyperbolic? I was wrong to suggest the men’s rights groups and womans rights groups were morally equal without knowing the facts. But, I don’t think advocating for men automatically means hating woman any more than the other way around.

But, I don’t think advocating for men automatically means hating woman any more than the other way around.

Good thing no one said it did. The rest of us aren’t talking in hypotheticals. We don’t have to suppose anything about MRAs. Maybe you have to because you know jack-all about the subject, but there’s no actual mystery about how MRAs operate or what their beliefs are. If you want to contribute something, go educate yourself. Your ignorant supposition is of zero value.

(#41)

Holy crap people, I’m trying to agree with you.

Then go educate yourself, and stop blithering about “what ifs” that have no relation to reality!

But, I don’t think advocating for men automatically means hating woman any more than the other way around.

This the rather immature and unnuanced thinking, or rather lack thereof, on your part. Learn something before you sound like you are just a concern troll type one. Which means don’t post again until you get some facts, not presuppositions, which is what you have at the moment with fallaciously thinking both sides are equally bad. That is crebot/godbot type thinking.

You don’t think the “techonz thinks women are less than human” thing was a little hyperbolic?

Based on some of you earlier comments, no, I really didn’t think it hyperbolic.

There are lots of things that sound good when you hear the words (Heartland Institute, The Liberty Foundation, Freedom for the Family. etc) which, once you actually read what they stand for, what they espouse, and the tactics that they use, will scare the shit out of anyone who respects actual reality.

There are lots of things that sound good when you hear the words (Heartland Institute, The Liberty Foundation, Freedom for the Family. etc) which, once you actually read what they stand for, what they espouse, and the tactics that they use, will scare the shit out of anyone who respects actual reality.

Yes, I know exactly what you mean. The “Democratic People’s Republic of Korea” for instance. I didn’t realize these MRA people I was defending actually do think women are less than human, because well, I’m an idiot.

You don’t think the “techonz thinks women are less than human” thing was a little hyperbolic? I was wrong to suggest the men’s rights groups and womans rights groups were morally equal without knowing the facts.

You jumped head-first into a discussion you knew next to nothing about with a false equivalency, and you’re upset that people assumed you already were familiar with the subjects they were discussing? Just take your lumps, and don’t make the same mistake next time.

Not very civilized, are you? Have you been badly mistreated and are now full of impotent anger? Sorry if that’s the case – wish I could help. Where do you live – I could come over there and sort you out if you like! Just kidding.

It may interest you to know I was really (hopefully and perhaps even in vain) addressing my comment to PZ himself, not to YOU! I just wanted to do it the easiest way, not expecting to be so “violently” disagreed with. So, Ta yourself, sir. Jerk!

It may interest you to know I was really (hopefully and perhaps even in vain) addressing my comment to PZ himself, not to YOU!

Who the fuck are you to have such an ego, that goes onto a public forum and thinks it only talks to one person. Somebody with their head up their ass, like you have. Try again later, when you stop being an egotistical asshole.

I just wanted to do it the easiest way, not expecting to be so “violently” disagreed with.

In other words, you are a delusional fuckwit who was brought up short by reality, which is that you are wrong.

Where do you live – I could come over there and sort you out if you like! Just kidding.

Don’t threaten me, Cupcake.

It may interest you to know I was really (hopefully and perhaps even in vain) addressing my comment to PZ himself, not to YOU! I just wanted to do it the easiest way, not expecting to be so “violently” disagreed with. So, Ta yourself, sir. Jerk!

If you wish to address PZ and have a modicum of intelligence, you would avail yourself of his e-mail address right there on the main page. Those without an intellectual deficiency realize that commenting in a comment thread leaves their post open to discussion by anyone.

You think shut the fuck up is violent and threats of physical harm are alright? Goodness, you’re one fucked up Cupcake.

By the way, I’m not a sir and Ta is slang for thank you. Now please, run off and do something productive, like trying to get your brain out of low gear. Ta.

That’s some impressive dumbassery-to-wordcount density timanthony’s got going there. In ninety words he crammed: tone trolling, misidentifying anger, dismissing anger, being callous towards someone he supposes has been mistreated, threatening violence, pretending he’s not threatening violence by masking it as a joke, demanding PZ’s personal attention, pretending his comment should only be addressed by PZ, equating disagreement with violence (or “violence,” whatever that is), and assuming on Caine’s gender. Oh, and the name calling and condescension, while technically kosher by Pharyngula standards, are pretty hypocritical coming from someone getting on his high horse about civility.

Not very civilized, are you? Have you been badly mistreated and are now full of impotent anger? Sorry if that’s the case – wish I could help. Where do you live – I could come over there and sort you out if you like! Just kidding.

You folks, particularly Caine, Divisitrix du mal (how about I call you beefcake?), can give it but you sure can’t take it. I’m not impressed. To answer a couple of your points:

First of all, I’m here because I’m a fan of PZ Myers, but not a blind deaf dumb stupid doting fan. I really do think he goes on a bit too much about the dumbness of dumb people. I find the dumbness of dumb people to be not worth discussing! (And I’m only using the term ‘dumb’ because ‘unintelligent’ is too long a word, and it isn’t as pointy as the word ‘stupid’. I’m only interested in offending beefcake here.

Second of all, Caine, Divisitrix du mal, you really are a little extreme, and over-the-top offensive yourself, and so you got some “extreme” back, didn’t you? Hurt much? BEEFCAKE :)

PZ is, imo, a tad annoying in public (i.e. his blog) so I commented right in the same forum and I can see nothing wrong with that. Believe it or not, there are others who are turned off by PZM’s tangential stridency – I’m not alone.

Lastly: Apologize and leave??? I already said “just kidding”. That’s already more than beefcake deserves for an apology. As for leaving, no. But I don’t think I will bother replying to any more of your witless babbling.

Maybe PZ himself wants to chime in? He could probably ban me if he thinks I’m so bad. Maybe send him a private email, beefcake.

Hey, timanthony, winner of the most ableist comment this week (I’m sorry, it’s only Monday and the race is already over), just take your ass and leave.
If you don’t like what PZ posts on his blog, just leave. If you have an actual opinion on the matter at hand, you could share it, although by now most people would be glad if you just left.

Yes, Koshka, you are correct. It was my direct and in-her-face retort to “Caine, Divisitrix du mal” for her referred to me as Cupcake. Since I use my real name my gender is apparent and so her use of the term amounts to an sexual epithet – specifically one that would appear might be banned, from my reading of the Commenting faq.

But in reply to your comment, “what a low act”, I think that you are totally wrong to criticize me but not Caine, Divisitrix du mal, and that you invalidate your own criticism in failing, somewhat pointedly!, to address that.

Speaking of the Comment faq: Looks like I then broke it too by referring to “Caine, Divisitrix du mal” as “beefcake”. To be frank, I cannot bring myself to apologize to “Caine, Divisitrix du mal” because she’s so darned divisive! not to mention reactionary, provocative and bloody rude. But I will apologize to everyone else – sorry about using a term (beefcake) that could be seen as a sexual slur no better than “Caine, Divisitrix du mal’s” was when she called me “cupcake”.

As for the “threat of violence”, I was careful to add “just kidding”, and to precede it in the same paragraph with stuff that was pretty obviously tongue-in-cheek. She seems to be British as she said modicum, ta and lovely, all Brit. dialect, plus she uses other language typical of football hooligans, and they are all British (so am I, for that matter, so don’t get yer knickers in a twist I’m not being racist here) and she’s safe from me – I’m nearly 5,000 kms away and will stay that way for a while yet.

And I’m still not leaving! Not voluntarily. But I don’t want to get on the wrong side of the blogger by breaking his rules which is the main reason I’m pulling back, a LITTLE, now. However, “Caine, Divisitrix du mal” started the insults. She lives up to her online name with style. Really bad style.

Well, you are showing us you don’t think. Think about that if you can. Besides, why do newbies who don’t undertand the “cupcake” meme act surprised when it used against them?

when she called me “cupcake”.

The “cupcake” meme isn’t sexist, as it used against both sexes. Basically it mean you are an intellectual lightweight who pretends to cogent when they are not. And they have an attitude like you do. So, where is your problem? You are a lightweight.